On this legal position it is contended that as the charge does not disclose the amounts he took as bribes and the persons from whom he had taken, the appellant was not given an opportunity to prove his innocence. But in our view this circumstance does not invalidate the charge though it may be a ground for asking for better particulars. The charge as framed clearly stated that the appellant habitually. accepted gratification other than legal remuneration and obtained pecuniary advantage by ,corrupt and illegal means. The charge contains allegations making out an offence under s. 5 (1) of the Act. The charge no doubt should have contained better particulars so as to enable the appellant to prove his case but the accused never complained that the charge did not contain the necessary particulars. The record discloses that the accused understood the case against him and adduced all the evidence which he wanted to place before the court. Section 225 of the Criminal Procedure Code says 'that no error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge, and no omission to state the offence or those particulars, shall be regarded at any stage of the case as material, unless the accused was in fact missled by such error or omission, and it has occasioned a failure of justice.' That apart the appellate Court could have set ,aside the conviction if the defect in the charge had occasioned a failure of justice but the appellant did not raise any objection either before the Special judge or in the High Court on the score that the charge was defective and that he was misled in his defence on the ground that no particulars of the persons from whom the bribes were taken were mentioned. Nor such an objection has been taken in the special leave petition, nor in the statement of the case.
Showing posts with label defect in charge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label defect in charge. Show all posts
Wednesday, 11 November 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)